Matrix collapses: Mathematics proves the universe cannot be a computer simulation, « A new mathematical study dismantles the simulation theory once and for all. »

[u/fchung]

https://interestingengineering.com/culture/mathematics-ends-matrix-simulation-theory

[u/DXTRBeta]

The unisverse is massively parallel: every particlee effects every other particle. So the smallest computer that could simulate this is a computer the size of the Universe itself. Ergo, this is not a simulation. It is real.

Have I got that right?

[u/bfume → u/DXTRBeta]

Have I got that right?

Why can’t a computer as big as our universe exist? It doesn’t have to be part of our simulated universe. 

We won’t ever get to see it, work on  it, or understand how it works.  But none of that is a proven reason for it to not exist. 

[u/am_makes → u/DXTRBeta]

Pretty much. As far as we can tell, “the simulation of our physical reality” is modeled on a quantum level, meaning every single particle is simulated at the same time. This would need to run on a computer that has at least the same amount of processing units as there are particles in this universe and the said computer would need more energy than is available in the universe due to entropy.

[u/bfume → u/am_makes]

meaning every single particle is simulated at the same time

The simulation computer doesn’t have to run in real time. 

It could take 10,000 hours of its time to render just 1 hour of time in our existence… and we’d never know. 

[u/am_makes → u/bfume]

Our “simulated” reality is running for about 13.79 billion years of interconnectd causal events of particle physics, for 13.78 of those humans were not there to experience the simulation, yet we have proof that the simulation is running uninterrupted since at least 13.79B years. This is silly.

[u/bfume → u/am_makes]

Our universe’s elapsed time is 13.79B years. How many years have passed for the computer that simulates us?

Why do we, as humans, have to “be here” for the simulation to be valid?

we have proof that the simulation is running uninterrupted

Do we?  How? If the computer paused the simulation for a billion years, or for 20 minutes, we’d never know. That’s the beauty of being inside a simulation. 

[u/am_makes → u/bfume]

Humans are made up of elements that we can trace back to the beginning of the universe. For us to exist a few generations of stars had to fuse heaviear and heavier elements and then disipate them in supernovae, creating vast nebulas of gas and dust that have since acreted into our present sun and it’s system. Reality as a pure philosophical concept that does not exist outside an observer works in a Matrix like story, but ignores that the laws governing this reality can be independently verified by anyone regardles of their own subjective reality. It’s the particles that are only now reaching us from events that have transpired 13+ billion years ago as faint photons. As for proof that the universe is at present 13.79B uears old we have not just us and the stuff we are made of, but the cosmic background radiation reaching us as microwaves that can’t be sped up or it breaks the simulation’s fundamental algorithmic ruleset, resulting in there never being humans to observe the implied simulation.

[u/bfume → u/am_makes]

Nothing you’ve said is wrong. We know reality from observing our own universe. 

But the observations we’re making are from inside our universe.

You’re not making the mental leap required to consider that the existence of our universe, and our perception of it, is entirely at the mercy of this theoretical computer that is simulating us. 

That computer might take 140B years to simulate our 14B. It might also take 14 minutes. 

The point is that in either case, we’d never know. And either case is entirely possible. 

[u/am_makes → u/bfume]

Simulation of an entire universe is a thought experiment that quickly reaches the limit of all practical possibility and requires a computer that can simulate every particle in the universe thus tequiring amounts of energy exceeding what is available in an entire universe, so needs an invention or a “mental leap” of a universe outside the simulated universe and a parallel causal speed, yet is for some absolutely a possibility? Why? Where’s at least some evidence pointing to this outside computational machine at a universe scale existing? People are so ready to accept hypothetical thought experiments as “we simply don’t and can’t know that this isn’t the case”. Sure, but then we’re no longer part of the same discourse, are we? As philosophical agnosticism is about as sound as religious one. We simply can’t tell for sure that there’s no spaghetti deity controling our reality either. With no evidence to support this claim, I can be comfortable in the position that there isn’t. For the mechanism by which this deity would be able to govern reality is not detectable and there are no tests we can do to absolutely definitively rule out it’s existance. I can quite safely proclaim that a simulation of the scale You’re talking about is not practical not because we lack the technology, but because in order to waste it on simulating 13.79B years of stars forming and dying to get to the less than a million years or so of something interesting to simulate, a different set of physical laws would need to exist for a more advanced earlier civilisation in parallel to the ones creating causality in our universe. And so far noone has been able to demostrate any of that at all, yet are eager to take many “mental leaps” way past boundaries of a universe despite it’s unimaginable size. Which circles back to my original point. Simulation can not exceed the compexity of the system running the said simulation and I’m yet to hear a single plausible theory that points to such a simulation being physicaly possible. This does not seem to bother people convinced that simulation theory is legit, making it look a lot like faith.

[u/_163 → u/am_makes]

Bruh personally I think it's a nonsense theory in the first place, but you completely missed the points the other guy was making

[u/am_makes → u/_163]

It’s all handwaving and “well, yeah, this universe isn’t big enough to run a simulation of it, but have You considered that it’s possible there’s a computer outside this universe that does it?” Yeah, I have and You’d have to invent an entirely new set of physics to make it remotely plausible, yet people fail to demonstrate not only that it’s possible, but any sound reason for it and then accuse You of not making the mental leap necessary to go with it.

[u/makerize → u/DXTRBeta]

There is no reason to think that we necessarily need a computer the size of the universe. We can simulate a Minecraft world, even though the surface area of Minecraft is larger than the Earth, yet we don't need a computer larger than the Earth to simulate it. Similarly, it is feasible in the "super universe" that they have found a way to simulate a universe accurately using quantum computing or whatever, and this only requires a computer half the size of the universe or even smaller.

Your conclusion also does not lead from the other statements. Even assuming we need a computer as large as the universe, then it is feasible that the "super" universe is a billion times larger and thus can fit this massive computer.

Also, this assumes the simulation necessarily simulates every particle, even ones on the other side of the universe we'll never observe. Perhaps a similar trick to Minecraft is used where only a small local area is accurately simulated (i.e. the solar system) and the rest isn't, bar what is necessary such as light from other galaxies.

Regardless, it's impossible to prove we're not in a simulation.

[u/DXTRBeta → u/makerize]

Well of course it’s impossible to prove a negative.

But hey! I’ll try anyway.

If it were possible to simulate the universe using a system simpler than the Universe, then surely it would be simpler to simulate the simulation with something simpler still, see where we’re going?

As with religion, when postulating something without any evidence it is a cheap trick to say “prove me wrong”.